Abstract
The practice and application of human reliability analysis (HRA) have long been controversial among human factors' professionals. The controversy has centered on quantification, lack of data, and the proper view of the human in the system. Benefits of structured HRA techniques, such as increased understanding of tasks, and of the conditions that produce errors, have often been ignored. With the increased emphasis on risk-based management and regulation we see this as a problem that must be solved to further our discipline's contribution to society. The problem can be attacked by: establishing what can make HRA legitimate in the eyes of HFES members, reviewing HRA methodologies for appropriateness and developing new methods with current concerns in mind, and developing good HRA data to support HRA judgments. The problem is not only tractable, but easily solved with cooperation, understanding, learning, and resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.